Is Disney Diluting Its Brand With Excessive Reboots?

Emma Watson will be playing Belle in Beauty and the Beast. (Photo by Neilson Barnard/Getty Images for The Huffington Post)

Images from Disney’s live-action reboot of Beauty and the Beast have leaked online, revealing Emma Watson’s outfit, and the titular beast himself. Disney has removed most of the images, so you'll have to search the dark corners of the internet if you'd like to see them.

Belle's new outfit appears to be an exact replica of the famous yellow dress. Boring. Personally, I was curious to see the modern redesign of the beast. I imagined some dark, gritty reboot but I was surprised to see, again, a near-identical design. The beast is still brown, hairy and horned, still wearing that snazzy blue waistcoat. The only substantial difference is that his fierce boar tusks have been replaced by cute little vampire fangs. To be expected perhaps, from Bill Condon, director of Twilight.

So far, we’ve only seen the aesthetics of the reboot, but it seems safe to say that Disney is simply replicating their 1991 animated classic, with a fresh coat of CGI and probably a stronger, more resourceful heroine, given the casting of Emma Watson, a celebrated feminist. In my opinion, this is a wasted opportunity to completely rebuild an old tale for a new era.

In a nutshell, Beauty and the Beast tells the story of a girl who softens up her frightening, animalistic man through loyalty, kindness, and love. The story has appeared in multiple forms throughout various cultures, apparently originating 4000 years ago. Quite literally, a tale as old as time. But the moral of the story is equally ancient - be a loyal and dedicated wife, and your beastly husband will transform into a prince. Hopefully. It’s even been suggested that the tale is a sort of guide book for young woman on how to approach an arranged marriage. Isn’t it time for this story to be turned on its head, rather than just cloned?

After the deserved success of Jon Favreau's The Jungle Book, the live action reboot of the musical animation, Disney has given the green light to not only a Jungle Book sequel, but a live-action reboot of The Lion King, Pinocchio, The Little Mermaid, 101 Dalmatians and Dumbo.

Perhaps Disney is repeating the mistake it made when it churned out poorly-produced sequels to all of its most beloved classics, faint echoes of the originals that cheapened their entire brand. That disastrous assembly line of direct-to-DVD sequels was halted by the arrival of Pixar’s John Lasseter, who pushed Disney to go back to doing what they do best - rebooting fairy tales.

2016’s The Jungle Book was great. Far better than many of us expected. It referenced and actually expanded on the plot of the original, as well as pushing the boundaries of CGI. But the constant need to reference what came before felt downright intrusive; Mowgli's weird red underwear, shoehorning in bad covers of the original songs. A reboot is a reimagining - there is no need to stay tethered to the original if it doesn't quite fit.

The Lion King and The Jungle Book’s characters have the advantage of simply being animals. In the transition to photorealism, they work. But taking a character from a hand-drawn animation and converting them to 3D often results in bizarre and unappealing design.

Take a look at the images of Cogsworth and Lumiere, the anthropomorphic clock and candlestick from the original Beauty and the Beast. In hand-drawn animation, they are whimsical and cute.

See? Whimsical. (Credit: Disney)

In real life, the prospect of a sentient timepiece is a little sinister.

See? Terrifying. (Credit: Disney)

Seeing the character incarnated in photorealistic CGI is downright terrifying, a bizarre design that would never have been approved if not for a need to reference the original. Sticking rigidly to the original aesthetic serves to cater only to the original generation who saw the cartoon as children and now want to see the progress of visual effects work its wonder on their memories.

Or the new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and their smooth, embryonic faces?

Not pleasant. (Credit: Paramount)

I wonder how much children relate to these strange creations.

The Jungle Book looked spectacular in the cinema, as will The Lion King, undoubtedly. But in ten years, will either be worth rewatching? Or even five? Will children want to watch an aging attempt at photorealism, or will they want to watch Zootopia?

Obviously, there’s nothing inherently wrong with photorealism. But CGI is an entirely separate medium from hand drawn animation and requires a different approach. The Brothers Grimm collected the dark, violent folktales from across Europe, then standardized and sanitized them for a wider audience. Disney has done the same, and they’ve undoubtedly done a wonderful job. In fact, they’re still producing fantastic original animation, reworking old fairy tales into something fresh, i.e. Tangled, Frozen and the upcoming Moana. But the glut of upcoming live-action reboots are simply tickling our nostalgia. Surely these familiar fairy tales, with their predictability, and tired old gender roles, can be deconstructed into stories more appropriate for our time, stories that challenge us?

Photorealistic CGI is a powerful tool that can be used to rework these childhood fairytales into adult narratives, instead of simply reminding us of a simpler time. These are ancient and powerful tales, lucrative brands that hold no copyright, yet in the minds of the public, Disney owns them. They popularized these stories across the world by reinterpreting them for a modern audience. If they don’t rework them again, then those fond memories are going to fade away, and someone else may redefine Belle and Cinderella. Perhaps Disney should stop saying “remember when?” and start saying “imagine if...”